NationStates Jolt Archive

This has got to take the cake. This is absolute bs that they even ask for this money. They shouldnt be there in the first place let alone ask for our money to move there asses out. I support our president. But if he helps in this way this will downgrade that support. I cant accept my tax dollars going for this kind of crap. Government doesnt pay me to move around here in America. So why should we help in this case.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/376D7B7B-F325-4A53-9DDD-CA8C03AC37F6.htm

I'm not surprised. Isreal has relied on US support for as long as it could for military and political support. Why not ask them to foot the bill for their own agreements with other parties as well? If they can get away with it, well, thats just good business sense.

I'm not surprised. Isreal has relied on US support for as long as it could for military and political support. Why not ask them to foot the bill for their own agreements with other parties as well? If they can get away with it, well, thats just good business sense.
We are their most powerful ally, of course they're coming to us for help. US intervention in beginning was the problem.

We are their most powerful ally, of course they coming to us for help. US intervention in beginning was the problem in the first place.

I honestly think Israel needed US weapons to be able to protect itself. After all why liberate jews in WWII and then turn them loose to be slaughtered just a few years later? I mean you think Iraq wont be equiped with US made weapons?

I honestly think Israel needed US weapons to be able to protect itself. After all why liberate jews in WWII and then turn them loose to be slaughtered just a few years later? I mean you think Iraq wont be equiped with US made weapons?
First of all, sorry about my poorly worded statement.
I have no doubt that the Iraq will be equiped with US-provided weapons for as long as several decades. I think if the Israeli's and others had not forced thousands of Palestinians off of their land, it wouldn't need as many weapons to protect themselves.

The US is pushing for a Gaza Pullout. If my country wants it that bad, then maybe we should provide assistance.

Secondly, the Israelis owned most of that land long before the Palistinians. And the part the Palistinians controlled was taken by the Israelis.

I don't know if you understand the concept of property. The Isralis took the land. They then owned it. Then the Romans took the land. Then the Muslims and the Christians fought over the land. Then the British took the land. Then they gave it back to the Israelis.

If you buy a car, it's yours. The factory can't come to you and say, "We made that car, now give it back to us." That car became the property of the buyer. It is now the buyer's and, most likely, the bank's. Not the factory's.

By the same token, the land is the Israelis' now. The Palistinians can't come and say, "Well, it was once ours. Give it back to us." But they do.

In my huble opinion, Israel should never have given the Palistinians the land they did. Because, all those Muslim countries around Israel, no matter how much they call for Israel to help the Palistinians, those same countries lift not a finger to aid their fellow Muslim brothers, or whathaveyou.

First of all, sorry about my poorly worded statement.
I have no doubt that the Iraq will be equiped with US-provided weapons for as long as several decades. I think if the Israeli's and others had not forced thousands of Palestinians off of their land, it wouldn't need as many weapons to protect themselves.

Well I can agree that they shouldnt have gone and pushed Palestinians off there land. It is the hardline jews that push for this.

Well I can agree that they shouldnt have gone and pushed Palestinians off there land. It is the hardline jews that push for this.
A dose of moderation in the matter would have made all the difference, not to mention keeping in mind property rights. It is always the extremists, on all sides, that create these sorts of situations. *sigh*

In my huble opinion, Israel should never have given the Palistinians the land they did. Because, all those Muslim countries around Israel, no matter how much they call for Israel to help the Palistinians, those same countries lift not a finger to aid their fellow Muslim brothers, or whathaveyou.

Can agree with this too, there is no simple answer to this problem from what I know about it. But I do know that Jordan, Syria, Egypt are just as much to blame for the Palestinian refugees as much as Israel. It isnt mentioned much though. I mean if these above countries cared so much for there Palestinian brothers. They would allow them in wouldnt they?

A dose of moderation in the matter would have made all the difference, not to mention keeping in mind property rights. It is always the extremists, on all sides, that create these sorts of situations. *sigh*

Aren't there a lot of hardliners in the Isreali parliament about now? I know that this pullout was already set to by the government, but do you think they'll actually stick on their side of the fence after this?

Can agree with this too, there is no simple answer to this problem from what I know about it. But I do know that Jordan, Syria, Egypt are just as much to blame for the Palestinian refugees as much as Israel. It isnt mentioned much though. I mean if these above countries cared so much for there Palestinian brothers. They would allow them in wouldnt they?

Here Hear!

-snip-
The problem is where does one draw the line? If A leaves his land, whether by choice or not, then B moves in afterward. Generations later, A's family wants to reclaim the land.
The Romans stole the land from the Israeli's. Honoring property rights would have meant the Romans did not take away their land. They used coercion to gain it. It is a difficult issue with huge gray areas. If the settlers honored the property rights of the Palestinians, then they should not have settled on their land without the Palestinians consent. They acquired it by coercion.

I don't know if you understand the concept of property. The Isralis took the land. They then owned it. Then the Romans took the land. Then the Muslims and the Christians fought over the land. Then the British took the land. Then they gave it back to the Israelis.
The concept of property lost all meaning in this case once military action got involved.
The Israelis weren't the first on that strip of land either, if you really wanna go into ancient history.
Apart from the fact that today's Israelis have ethnically or religiously absolutely nothing to do with the Israelis from back then.

The problem is where does one draw the line? If A leaves his land, whether by choice or not, then B moves in afterward. Generations later, A's family wants to reclaim the land.
The Romans stole the land from the Israeli's. Honoring property rights would have meant the Romans did not take away their land. They used coercion to gain it. It is a difficult issue with huge gray areas. If the settlers honored the property rights of the Palestinians, then they should not have settled on their land without the Palestinians consent. They acquired it by coercion. I have a difficult time myself analyzing where to draw the line.

Hee hee, because its only fair when they get to do it. Anyone else who does it is evil.

Aren't there a lot of hardliners in the Isreali parliament about now? I know that this pullout was already set to by the government, but do you think they'll actually stick on their side of the fence after this?

I hope that someone doesnt kill Sharon for this. A militant Jew that is. That would make a huge setback for peace at this point.

The concept of property lost all meaning in this case once military action got involved.
The Israelis weren't the first on that strip of land either, if you really wanna go into ancient history.
Apart from the fact that today's Israelis have ethnically or religiously absolutely nothing to do with the Israelis from back then.
It all depends on how far back you wish to go. I personally think that ethnic/cultural issues should be placed aside when discussing property. Unless you want to talk about abstract value. With those issues secondary, it is easier to determine whose land it really is.

I hope that someone doesnt kill Sharon for this. A militant Jew that is. That would make a huge setback for peace at this point.
Agreed.
Although there was a time when it was difficult to find a Jew more militant than General Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon...
(I made that name up myself)

Agreed.
Although there was a time when it was difficult to find a Jew more militant than General Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon...
(I made that name up myself)

I know it is ironic isnt it.

I personally think that ethnic/cultural issues should be placed aside when discussing property..
I would hope so too, but it is rather idealistic, don't you think?
To many Jews, that land is what god gave them, and to many Muslims, I guess the same goes for them.
There are so many religious sites there as well (although apparently the Wailing Wall or whatever it's called isn't actually from the temple)

I would hope so too, but it is rather idealistic, don't you think?
To many Jews, that land is what god gave them, and to many Muslims, I guess the same goes for them.
There are so many religious sites there as well (although apparently the Wailing Wall or whatever it's called isn't actually from the temple)
Alas, you're right. Israel is so culturally diverse, that no matter who receives what there will always be conflict.

Hmm... this is either a very devious but clever move or a way of simply trying to be recompensed for the hassle it is being pressured into making.

This could be viewed as Israel passing the buck to America in an attempt to secure its own authority at the expense of another's. If the US says Yes, Israel gets the money and can use it to relocate or whatever the heck it does with funds like that (possibly arms, but that's raw, unbased speculation). If it says No, Israel can then claim that they do not have the resources available to them to make the withdrawal because America didn't give it to them, thus saying "Hey, we wanted to!" and trying to absolve itself from blame.

The States could well have just been offered a Hobson's Choice. Interesting development, if that turns out to be the case...

Do we even have the soldiers at the moment to give Israel support? I mean were in afganistan although that number isnt to large. were in Iraq and then do we have all those soldiers plopped down in korea trying to intimidat kim Jun Il do we even have the resources to support Israel at this point?

if it will get them out of gaza, i say we send a fleet of moving vans and "get'r done"

if it will get them out of gaza, i say we send a fleet of moving vans and "get'r done"

Hahaha i dont think thats quite what Israel was asking for.

Ya im wiv dat guy Israel Sucks ass stupid rich ass jews the al-asqa-martyr will b there shortly i guess (israelian) :p (al-asqa-martyr member) :mp5:

Ya im wiv dat guy Israel Sucks ass stupid rich ass jews the al-asqa-martyr will b there shortly i guess (israelian) :p (al-asqa-martyr member) :mp5:
I assume that is meant to be trolling, but I can't even understand it...are you against or for Israel?

Looks pro-Palestine. Let's try a translation:

"Yes, I'm with that guy! Israel Sucks ass!

Under breath: Stupid rich-ass Jews.

The Al-Asqa Martyrs will be there shortly.

<< Insert scene of one of the latter shooting one of the former >>"

... Well, that was sure worth the effort. ¬¬;

I do hereby banish thee back under the bridge from whence thy came, and curse thee to be eternally outsmarted by Gruff Billy-goats!

You know I love how a bunch of people who probably don't anything about the situation other than what they read, decides to rant against something. Honesty I doubt any of you know what the situation is like in Gaza.

To TIFN כובל טםו

Insert scene of one of the latter shooting one of the former
Oh, that was what that was.
Oh, boy - creative, but poorly executed.

You know I love how a bunch of people who probably don't anything about the situation other than what they read, decides to rant against something. Honesty I doubt any of you know what the situation is like in Gaza.
Indeed, I am somewhat hampered in my efforts by my geographical location.
If you are there, then please describe it as detailed as you can.

Indeed, I am somewhat hampered in my efforts by my geographical location.
If you are there, then please describe it as detailed as you can.

I am not currently there. I spent a year there when I was in training for my job. My job is with the Israeli government, just so you know. :p

I am not currently there. I spent a year there when I was in training for my job. My job is with the Israeli government, just so you know. :p
So which comment by someone was incorrect so far?
Apart from the smiley-shooting of course...

And one thing that I always wanted to ask (this is NOT intended to upset anyone): What would happen if some of the settlers decided to use force against their "removalists"?

So which comment by someone was incorrect so far?
Apart from the smiley-shooting of course...

And one thing that I always wanted to ask (this is NOT intended to upset anyone): What would happen if some of the settlers decided to use force against their "removalists"?

Well there are quite a few. As for the removal, they dont have too, its just they are not protected by our armed forces if they dont move. Now if they try to shoot them then its a different story that doesn't need to be dealved into.

Well there are quite a few. As for the removal, they dont have too, its just they are not protected by our armed forces if they dont move. Now if they try to shoot them then its a different story that doesn't need to be dealved into.It most certainly does need to be thought about. The army will simply take them by force, and they will face justice for dis0beying the law of their country, like other criminals. It's happened before, I won't be surprosed if it happens again.

K then, would you rather they just stay in gaza? they are doing a good thing helping the palestinians establish their own state and GOD FORBID the Americans would help with that.

It most certainly does need to be thought about. The army will simply take them by force, and they will face justice for dis0beying the law of their country, like other criminals. It's happened before, I won't be surprosed if it happens again.
If they open fire then we are allowed to defend ourselves, they will face court if they survive and if they don't, g-d forbid they obviously paid the ultimate price. But being that we are not entirely forcing them, it is expected that we wont have many of them of any.

Doesn't Israel have a higher standard of living than the US?

-snip-
Actually, if a new settlement is founded, or an old one extended, what is the procedure for that?
How much government invlovement is there, and how much is really just done by the settlers themselves?

....There are so many religious sites there as well (although apparently the Wailing Wall or whatever it's called isn't actually from the temple)
Just for the record, the Wailing Wall is the Western outer wall that surrounded and supported the temple mount complex. It wasn't part of the structure of the tabernacle itself.

Doesn't Israel have a higher standard of living than the US?
I wouldn't say so, no.

Actually, if a new settlement is founded, or an old one extended, what is the procedure for that?
How much government invlovement is there, and how much is really just done by the settlers themselves?
That is where things iffy. We usually keep troops in and officials, while officials may be taking out if it becomes too dangerous. As for settlers think of it as the way the US did in Iraq except organized and done prooperly.

I wouldn't say so, no.
Correct, it is one of the hieghest in the world, but not higher than the US. :(
Sorry guys I am gonna have to go, Jolt is having issues with my satelite internet.

Ah. I stand corrected. Israel, however, should be developed enough to fund this pullout.

Ah. I stand corrected. Israel, however, should be developed enough to fund this pullout.
Israel CAN afford the pullout. Do you really think that if the US does not approve the request for more funds, the disengagement plan will not be carried out? Hell, this request is literally yesterday's initiative, it wasn't even there when the original plan was being drafted.

Israel is simply using an opportunity to compensate itself for the losses. Like Germanische Zustande said, if the US is so interested in Israeli evacuation from Gaza, it is only appropriate for them to help Israel out by paying part of the bill. Not to mention that when Israel will receive this money, if at all, is a big question. We're yet to see a cent of what Clinton promised Barak for the retreat from South Lebanon.

Correct, it is one of the hieghest in the world, but not higher than the US. :(
I wouldn't say "one of the highest. By per capita income, Israel is on the 22 place among the world states.

I wouldn't say "one of the highest. By per capita income, Israel is on the 22 place among the world states.
I geuss its just me, being that I work in the government. I havent checked them lately though.

Perhaps if you give Israel some supplemental foreign aid now to effect the pullout, the ongoing hostilities in the region will lessen and they will require less aid in the future. 5.5 billion a year from the U.S. alone seems pretty steep.

Oh and btw - why is it that when anyone invokes God on a thread in this forum about morality, or sexuality, or law, or whatever, they get shut down immediately, but when someone claims "God gave Israel to the Jews" it is just accepted without comment?

Essentially, if you have to pay Israel some money (some might call it a "bribe"...) for them to move out, then that's okay.
But it is probably even more important that Palestine gets enough aid so they can finally get their act together.

I just find it interesting...every time Israel TRIES pulling out the terrorists hit Israel. Now shouldn't it be the other way around? Israel starts to give them what they want...and then they go blow up 20 or so innocent people. FORCING Israel to cease their retreat.

If you want a foreign power who is in your homeland because of you keep blowing up their civilians to LEAVE you don't go and kill more of there civilians AS THEY ARE LEAVING.

It's just purely ridiculous.

And I would also like to point out Israel occupies these lands because Israel was attacked unprovoked in the what? 1960s? I dare say if Canada and Mexico attacked us unprovoked we wouldn't be so quick to withdraw...especially if they were sending suicide bombers across our borders....and especially if we tried leaving and they attacked us.

Has anyone ever considered that? And really, if the United States was being constantly attacked week after week by lets say Canada (absurd, but this is just an analogy). How long do you think Canada would exist? If we had suicide bombers constantly blowing themselves up on our streets, walking into Christmas celebrations and shooting 50 people dead, launching missles at Niagra, Detroit, etc, on a regular basis for YEARS on end. You can be sure the US military would have ERRADICATED the Canadian goverment (if it were a terrorist state...which it IS NOT. I'm not implying that. I generally like Canadians).

Has anyone ever considered that?

Hahahahahaha! Are you new?

Perhaps if you give Israel some supplemental foreign aid now to effect the pullout, the ongoing hostilities in the region will lessen and they will require less aid in the future. 5.5 billion a year from the U.S. alone seems pretty steep.
Just where do you take the 5.5 billion figure? To my knowlege, its 3 billion overall including loan guarantees (and loan guarantees mean that the US isn't actually transferring a cent).


Oh and btw - why is it that when anyone invokes God on a thread in this forum about morality, or sexuality, or law, or whatever, they get shut down immediately, but when someone claims "God gave Israel to the Jews" it is just accepted without comment?
Do quote the post in this thread that said such a thing and went unresponded.

I geuss its just me, being that I work in the government. I havent checked them lately though.
Well yessssss, with government paid salary you indeed might not have known the real situation :p

Just where do you take the 5.5 billion figure? To my knowlege, its 3 billion overall including loan guarantees (and loan guarantees mean that the US isn't actually transferring a cent).

Do quote the post in this thread that said such a thing and went unresponded.

Off the top of Google's head:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.miftah.org/PrinterF.cfm?DocId=753


Any thread that suggests that the land of Israel rightfully belongs to the Jewish people ultimately rests upon this claim. The search function on this forum does not recognize most of the words I tried to search under, for example the other day someone posted "the jews were there first" but the search function says "the words 'were, there and first' are too short and will be ignored". I am at work and I do not have unlimited time to go through every thread to find "proofs" for you. Though, I notice you do not ask for quotes or links proving that the references to God in other threads get shut down: it happens so frequently that nobody needs quotes, we are all perfectly aware of it. The same cannot be said of any Jewish claim to the land. Many Americans in particular tend to be quite vociferous in denouncing the Palestinian claims and have simply accepted that Israel should belong to the Jews. I just wonder why they accept that claim, while generally laughing in the face of any other sort of claim that relies upon "God said so" as a basis. You know, in general, not on a specific thread that I can link for you.

Off the top of Google's head:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.miftah.org/PrinterF.cfm?DocId=753

1)The Jewish Virtual Library link does not support your claim, as it puts the aid last year at 2687.3. The highest annual amount of US aid EVER, according to this link, is indeed nearing 5 billion (the year 1979), but the average is clearly at or below 3 billion per year.

2)The Miftah link has a strong anti-Israeli bias, and it shows in their "analysis".
(damn, it gives such a bad name to the word). However, even by their figures, and I quote, Since 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill totaling an average of $3 billion. The rest of their musings consists of inflating the number by adding the following:

Loan guarantees- these do not mean a transfer of even a single cent of US taxpayer money. It merely means that US co-signs loans borrowed by Israel abroad and commits itself to paying them if Israel is unable to do so. To this day, Israel has not reneged on a single one of the aforementioned loans.

"Consequential" aid, which Miftah defines as private donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors.. That is, this is money that does not come from US government at all, but from individual citizens willing to support Israel. Including these donations into US aid to Israel is an obvious absurd.


Any thread that suggests that the land of Israel rightfully belongs to the Jewish people ultimately rests upon this claim.
That's not what I've seen so far.


The search function on this forum does not recognize most of the words I tried to search under, for example the other day someone posted "the jews were there first" but the search function says "the words 'were, there and first' are too short and will be ignored".
"The Jews were there first" is not a claim for divine entitlement, but a historical fact that can be supported by any archaeologist or historian worth his salt.


Many Americans in particular tend to be quite vociferous in denouncing the Palestinian claims and have simply accepted that Israel should belong to the Jews. I just wonder why they accept that claim, while generally laughing in the face of any other sort of claim that relies upon "God said so" as a basis. You know, in general, not on a specific thread that I can link for you.
You see, in general, Israel's claim for the land is on historical and national grounds, not religious ones. This land belonged to the Jewish people in the past, and it is the only land on which the Jewish people can legitimately fulfill their right for self-determination, as guaranteed to all nations by the UN Charter.

Well yessssss, with government paid salary you indeed might not have known the real situation :p
*chokes on drink* youve got to be kinding my paycheck is squat. And I am not in that part of the govt. anyway.

*chokes on drink* youve got to be kinding my paycheck is squat. And I am not in that part of the govt. anyway.
What part of the Government are you from then, if you don't mind me asking?

Loan Guarantees are not “Giving Money”. They have to be paid back. Syria and Iran like most Islamic Regimes do not seem to understand this as every time they “Purchase” something from Russia, they each seem to demand their debts be forgiven, so then they purchase more Missiles from Russia which they can then not pay for.

Israel, is small enough that you can fire over it with a high powered rifle. Is Islam not content with ruling everything else from South Africa to the middle of Russia? If they get this worked up over a strip of land this small, than how ever will we appease them when they demand India and Serbia next? Just like they demanded The Ivory Coast and Lebanon.

What America is really “bribing” Israel for, is Peace. If America did not offer Israel a diplomatic alternative, Israel would be forced to defend itself, just as most other countries do. With force. That force would escalate to an open war between tiny little Israel and a Billion Moslems. This would require Israel deploy its full technological capabilities and that, would annihilate the Moslem world. They would bring it on themselves really.

There is a sort of Critical Mass approaching. Iran, may soon be Nuclear. They are trying quite clearly. If they become Nuclear, there is only one possible outcome. That is, someone will use Nuclear Weapons and someone will retaliate. The Israeli Strategy for dealing with a Nuclear War, is to launch every nuclear weapon it has and completely annihilate, whatever “Entity” poses the threat. They are too small to risk absorbing an attack themselves.

Is Islam not content with ruling everything else from South Africa to the middle of Russia? If they get this worked up over a strip of land this small, than how ever will we appease them when they demand India and Serbia next? Just like they demanded The Ivory Coast and Lebanon.
Islam has a collective intelligence, does it?

1)The Jewish Virtual Library link does not support your claim.

It's not "my claim", it's just a number I have seen quoted many times. Three billion a year also seems fairly steep. Personally I don't give a shite how much money Americans give away, I don't live there.

As for loan guarantees, why would you not include this as foreign aid? If you ask somebody else to co-sign your loan, you are asking for their help to get credit that you couldn't get on your own, and they are assuming the risk and tying up their own borrowing power in the process.

"Consequential" aid, which Miftah defines as private donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors.. That is, this is money that does not come from US government at all, but from individual citizens willing to support Israel. Including these donations into US aid to Israel is an obvious absurd.

How is that absurd? The issue raised in this thread was how much Israel is receiving from Americans. What is this distinction you are trying to draw between sources, and why do you think some sources should not be brought up in conversation?

"The Jews were there first" is not a claim for divine entitlement, but a historical fact that can be supported by any archaeologist or historian worth his salt. You see, in general, Israel's claim for the land is on historical and national grounds, not religious ones. This land belonged to the Jewish people in the past, and it is the only land on which the Jewish people can legitimately fulfill their right for self-determination, as guaranteed to all nations by the UN Charter.

I never said "The Jews were there first" was a claim for divine entitlement. I said someone had posted it in a thread and in the process of trying to locate that thread the search engine came up clueless, which kept me from locating the thread I wanted, where lots of other neat quotes might have been found for you.

As for "historical fact", everything I can find points to the area being settled from Neolithic times, when people were just "people" and not "us" and "them". Canaan existed prior to the Hebrews' existence as a tribe. Lots of interesting stuff can be found:

"At the end of what is referred to as the Middle Kingdom era of Egypt, and the event that actually caused its end, was a massive Asiatic invasion of Egypt. Around 1674 BC, the Semitic invaders, whom the Egyptians referred to as the "Hyksos", conquered Lower (northern) Egypt, evidently leaving Canaan an ethnically diverse land.

In the centuries preceding the Hebrew invasion(s), Canaan and Syria became tributary to the Egyptian Pharoahs, although domination by the sovereign power was not so strong as to prevent frequent local rebellions.

Most interesting is the mention of troublesome invaders called sometimes SA-GAS (a Babylonian ideogram meaning "robber"), and sometimes Habiri. These Habiri are believed by some to signify generally all the nomadic tribes known as "Hebrews", and particularly the early Israelites, who sought to appropriate the fertile region for themselves. The terms Habiri and the Assyrian form Habiru may also include other related peoples such as the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

Actually, one should just do a big DNA Testing.
Bloody hell, today's Israelis have nothing to do with the Israelite tribes of antiquity - no more so than I have to do with the Cheruskans or Chatti or Ostrogoths.
We all lived more or less side by side in Europe for 2000 years, and mixed our genes and cultures for that whole time.
The only half-way credible claim is religious similarities between today's Israelis and ancient Israelites, and even that looks shaky if you consider that ancient Israelites had many interesting rites and stuff that don't exist anymore...like cow-headed fertility gods.

Actually, one should just do a big DNA Testing.

What??! But what if they find out that actually they are all descended from exactly the same genetic stock? What will happen to all the racism and tribal bullshit then? Good heavens, what if the bloodshed and madness turns out to be just childishness and greed after all?

...ancient Israelites had many interesting rites and stuff that don't exist anymore...like cow-headed fertility gods.

What do you mean, "that don't exist anymore"? Maybe YOUR cow-headed fertility god is missing, but MINE certainly is not.

*strokes his cow-headed fertility god lovingly*

Good heavens, what if the bloodshed and madness turns out to be just childishness and greed after all?
Good question...left-wing parties will win elections again!

As for loan guarantees, why would you not include this as foreign aid? If you ask somebody else to co-sign your loan, you are asking for their help to get credit that you couldn't get on your own, and they are assuming the risk and tying up their own borrowing power in the process.
It's not that Israel "can't get those credits on their own", its a matter of more favorable conditions of the loan for the most part.

The reason I would not include loan guarantees into foreign aid is because most people don't realize the difference and tend to perceive the total number of aid as raw cash changing hands, which simply isn't true. The herd of "concerned taxpayers" with an ax to grind against Israel frequently jump onto the aid number while screeching "look how much of MY MONEY they give to Israel"- while loan guarantees, as I have pointed out, do not mean transfer of even a single cent. It's not even borrowed money, its the money that does not come from the US at all.


How is that absurd? The issue raised in this thread was how much Israel is receiving from Americans. What is this distinction you are trying to draw between sources, and why do you think some sources should not be brought up in conversation?
Not from "Americans", but from the US as a state, from the US government and other federal sources. Otherwise you could as well count as "aid" all the money American tourists spend in Israel or on Israeli made products in the US. Money donated by individual citizens cannot be counted as part of the state's aid programm, it simply makes no sense whatsoever.


I never said "The Jews were there first" was a claim for divine entitlement. I said someone had posted it in a thread and in the process of trying to locate that thread the search engine came up clueless, which kept me from locating the thread I wanted, where lots of other neat quotes might have been found for you.
Well, "someone here" is hardly an authority on which to base your opinions.


As for "historical fact", everything I can find points to the area being settled from Neolithic times, when people were just "people" and not "us" and "them". Canaan existed prior to the Hebrews' existence as a tribe. Lots of interesting stuff can be found:
Sure, but show me another nation who is still around from those times to make a claim for statehood.

Actually, one should just do a big DNA Testing.
Bloody hell, today's Israelis have nothing to do with the Israelite tribes of antiquity - no more so than I have to do with the Cheruskans or Chatti or Ostrogoths.

This, my friend, is a silly genetic purity argument that doesn't at all understand how inheritance works.

Let me give you an example. Your grandfather, in all likelyhood, did not marry his own sister, but married outside of the family and produced your grandfather. Your father was already a "half-blood" in terms of genetic purity. Now, your dad, in all likelyhood, did not marry his own sister either, but again married outside of the family, making you a "quarter-blood". And yet it would be absurd to claim that you're not part of your grandfather's family just because you have so little of his blood in your veins, wouldn't it?

It isn't the DNA that determins whether or not you belong to a nation.

Buy hey, DNA researches have also been done, and showed clear links between the European and the Oriental Jews. There's been a whole range of genetic studies done around 2000- the University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of 2000, and others, and all came out proving that the main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. In fact, only the Libyan and the Ethiopean Jews have more non-Jewish than Israelite genetic ancestry.

This, my friend, is a silly genetic purity argument that doesn't at all understand how inheritance works....It isn't the DNA that determins whether or not you belong to a nation.
There's been a whole range of genetic studies done [] and all came out proving that the main ethnic element [] of most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite.
It obviously isn't the DNA. But you can't possibly hope to claim that you are a direct descendant of the Israelites that had their kingdom smashed by the various powers of antiquity.
If you do, then I declare myself Cheruskan right here. Sure, I could have the blood of hundreds of different tribes and nationalities in me, by I will just pick one and stick with that.
Your argument could be then used for all kinds of things...I wanna conquer Italy - I declare myself Italian! Wanna take Poland? Now I'm Polish!
The Israelite kingdoms are gone. Destroyed, thousands of years ago, the people overthrown and dispersed. It's nice you have something to hold on to in those kingdoms, but you can't use them for political arguments, really.

It obviously isn't the DNA. But you can't possibly hope to claim that you are a direct descendant of the Israelites that had their kingdom smashed by the various powers of antiquity.
If you do, then I declare myself Cheruskan right here. Sure, I could have the blood of hundreds of different tribes and nationalities in me, by I will just pick one and stick with that.
Sure, as soon as you find a Cheruskan nation you could be a part of. One man does not a nation make though.


Your argument could be then used for all kinds of things...I wanna conquer Italy - I declare myself Italian! Wanna take Poland? Now I'm Polish!
Some polish wouldn't hurt that face of yours, that's for sure.

But like I said, by your logic you're not your father's son because you have your mom's blood in you. :rolleyes:

Want to be an Italian? Move to Italy. Want to be Polish? Move to Poland. These nations exist and you can join them if you qualify, no problem on this end. :rolleyes:


The Israelite kingdoms are gone. Destroyed, thousands of years ago, the people overthrown and dispersed. It's nice you have something to hold on to in those kingdoms, but you can't use them for political arguments, really.
What political argument? There exists a specific nation, with proven ancestry and link to a specific territory, therefore they qualify for self-determination in this land. That's all the argument anyone ever needed.

What political argument? There exists a specific nation, with proven ancestry and link to a specific territory, therefore they qualify for self-determination in this land. That's all the argument anyone ever needed.
The argument is merely that your claim to the land you choose to call Israel is stronger than the claim the Palestinians have, or the Italians for that matter.
Afterall, they all owned it at one point or another.
Your ancestry is not proven, and even less so is your link to that specific strip of land. Why do you think I have a claim to Eastern Prussia, when it clearly isn't so? Do you advocate me going to Eastern Prussia, driving away anyone who might live there and then building a settlement surrounded with a wall?

I accept that there is a nation called Israel today. I disagree with many of its' policies, and with the portrayal of these policies. I am also unhappy with how the nation came to be, given how much better things could have been had any Zionists been asked.

Nonetheless, things are as they are. The UN says that strip of land is called "Israel" and so it shall be. Who lives there, I really couldn't give much of a shit, as long as they manage to get along with their neighbours.

And as you have probably read before, my view on the matter is that it would be best if we could start again from 1948/49. That would require a larger sacrifice of Israel than of the Palestinians, but then Israel has enjoyed many years "on the top" now and can probably afford it.
If peace can be reached another way, then I'm all for it, and I hope that this whole deal now can go through.

But in short - I just don't want a fight right now.

Well, "someone here" is hardly an authority on which to base your opinions.

Let me say this slowly and clearly: I...was...looking...for...a...thread.

All threads have an author. If I can't find the thread, I can't find the author. WTF, this is not a difficult concept.

Sure, but show me another nation who is still around from those times to make a claim for statehood.

Okay, so if the UN decides to arbitrarily decree that Canaan shall henceforth the new name of the combined lands of Israel, Judea, Jordan, Syria and Gaza and hands it over to some arbitrary ethnic group with tenuous historical links to the land, you would respect the ruling and move along? It's all about a new nation being given the same name as an ancient kingdom had thousands of years prior, apparently, that establishes your crucial link. Israel isn't "still around" from those days, a new nation with a re-used name is.

Let me say this slowly and clearly: I...was...looking...for...a...thread.

All threads have an author. If I can't find the thread, I can't find the author. WTF, this is not a difficult concept.
And if you did find it, how exactly would it matter and what exactly difference would it make? It would still be a Nationstates board poster- hardly an authority of any kind on anything.


Okay, so if the UN decides to arbitrarily decree that Canaan shall henceforth the new name of the combined lands of Israel, Judea, Jordan, Syria and Gaza and hands it over to some arbitrary ethnic group with tenuous historical links to the land, you would respect the ruling and move along? It's all about a new nation being given the same name as an ancient kingdom had thousands of years prior, apparently, that establishes your crucial link. Israel isn't "still around" from those days, a new nation with a re-used name is.
You two can't REALLY be that dense, can you?

If you think Israel is a "new nation with a re-used name", do enlighten me as for what they were called before and when the name was changed. Any historian worth his salt will tell you that there is an uninterrupted connection- but it'll be amusing to see you arguing otherwise.

Israel should never have been created. British withdrawal in 1948 was a terrible mistake, but it was hard to justify maintaining a presence there when Jewish terrorists blew up innocent British civilians.

But it was created, and we have to deal with it. Only by granting full suffrage to the Arabs in the occupied territories can Israel become truly democratic, but that is very unlikely to happen.

Palestine was Arab for 1500 years. The eviction of native peoples from lands which they have lived in for centuries can never be justified, whether it be the Arabs of Palestine or the Germans of East Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania.

Do quote the post in this thread that said such a thing and went unresponded.

When I say I tried to find the thread, you replied?

And if you did find it, how exactly would it matter and what exactly difference would it make? It would still be a Nationstates board poster- hardly an authority of any kind on anything.

How's that "cohesive argument" thing working out for ya? It was your idea I find the thread in the first place, wasn't it?

You two can't REALLY be that dense, can you?

If you think Israel is a "new nation with a re-used name", do enlighten me as for what they were called before and when the name was changed. Any historian worth his salt will tell you that there is an uninterrupted connection- but it'll be amusing to see you arguing otherwise.

http://www.adl.org/Israel/Conversion/creation.asp
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate2.html
http://www.sunship.com/mideast/info/maps/british-mandate-map.html
http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/Intromaps/britishmandatemap.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/british_control.stm
http://www.ottomansouvenir.com/img/Maps/Ottoman_Empire_1481-1683_map.jpg
http://www.ottomansouvenir.com/img/Maps/Ottoman_Empire_Map_Largest_Borders.JPG

When I say I tried to find the thread, you replied?
I said "in this" thread, didn't I?


How's that "cohesive argument" thing working out for ya? It was your idea I find the thread in the first place, wasn't it?
See above.



http://www.adl.org/Israel/Conversion/creation.asp
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate2.html
How does that answer my question in any meaningful way?

I said "in this" thread, didn't I?

Except that what you were responding to was my quote that said "in any thread where", it was never about this thread in the first place.

How does it answer your assertion that Israel existed as a nation the whole time? Well, it says clearly that it was created in 1948, and the map (I have added a bunch more, by the way) shows no Israel.

Oh and by the way, lest I be thought "anti-Israel", I have no issue with a homeland for the Jewish people blah blah blah (though it sure sounds racist to me). I just maintain that the current arguments for it are a lot of bullshit, and should be re-thought if the Israeli cause wants to have any credibility.

Except that what you were responding to was my quote that said "in any thread where", it was never about this thread in the first place.


How does it answer your assertion that Israel existed as a nation the whole time? Well, it says clearly that it was created in 1948, and the map (I have added a bunch more, by the way) shows no Israel.
You are confusing a nation and a state, thereby further proving my point. Your original claim, I believe, was that the Jewish nation of today somehow has no connection to the Jewish nation of 2000 years ago- which is the claim I challenged you to defend.

As for the state- well, of course there wasn't a souvereign state of Israel until 1948- so what? There was no souvereign Arab state whatsoever until after World war I- what exactly is your point here?

Oh and by the way, lest I be thought "anti-Israel", I have no issue with a homeland for the Jewish people blah blah blah (though it sure sounds racist to me). I just maintain that the current arguments for it are a lot of bullshit, and should be re-thought if the Israeli cause wants to have any credibility.
So, a homeland for the Jewish people is somehow racist? Hey now, we have plenty of racist states in the world then! Let us take Sweden. The people of Sweden define themselves as Swedish, as opposed to all other people who are non-Swedish and therefore considered, by implication, inferior with regards to whatever qualities make someone Swedish. And even though this division of the world between Swedes and non-Swedes is based to a large extent simply on whether someone has been born in Sweden or to Swedish parents, the world has been strangely silent and reticent about this obviously racist criteria for inclusion. And these people dare have a Swedish state? Darned racist, they are.

Your original claim, I believe, was that the Jewish nation of today somehow has no connection to the Jewish nation of 2000 years ago- which is the claim I challenged you to defend.

Wrong person.

As for the state- well, of course there wasn't a souvereign state of Israel until 1948- so what? There was no souvereign Arab state whatsoever until after World war I- what exactly is your point here?

What does a sovereign Arab state have to do with anything?

Wrong person.
I see. It seems I gave you too much credit and your argument makes even less sense than I expected it to.


What does a sovereign Arab state have to do with anything?
What does the fact of Israel not being a souvereign state before 1948 have to do with anything?

So, a homeland for the Jewish people is somehow racist? Hey now, we have plenty of racist states in the world then! Let us take Sweden. The people of Sweden define themselves as Swedish, as opposed to all other people who are non-Swedish and therefore considered, by implication, inferior with regards to whatever qualities make someone Swedish. And even though this division of the world between Swedes and non-Swedes is based to a large extent simply on whether someone has been born in Sweden or to Swedish parents, the world has been strangely silent and reticent about this obviously racist criteria for inclusion. And these people dare have a Swedish state? Darned racist, they are.

You are confusing nationality with race. To be Swedish is a nationality, they do not consider themselves "the Swedish race", nor do they do genetic testing to "prove they are really Swedish", or trace their ancestry back through blood to "the original Tribes of Sverige".

I see. It seems I gave you too much credit and your argument makes even less sense than I expected it to.

No, it seems you just have trouble knowing who you are talking to from one moment to the next. :)

What does the fact of Israel not being a souvereign state before 1948 have to do with anything?

More to the point, the nation of Israel did not exist outside of the heads of the Zionists for thousands of years. Of course "the sand" was still there, but it was not the nation of Israel, any more than it was the nation of Egypt, or the nation of Syria, or the British Mandate.

You are confusing nationality with race. To be Swedish is a nationality, they do not consider themselves "the Swedish race", nor do they do genetic testing to "prove they are really Swedish", or trace their ancestry back through blood to "the original Tribes of Sverige".
Jews do not consider themselves a "race" either, but a nation. And the DNA issue is only ever brought up as a response to the odd claims like Leonstein here was trying to make. Nobody did any genetic testing to me to figure out if I qualify for Israeli citizenship when I came here.

I say my comparison is quite accurate. Or would you like me to use the French as an example? ;)

Jews do not consider themselves a "race" either, but a nation. And the DNA issue is only ever brought up as a response to the odd claims like Leonstein here was trying to make. Nobody did any genetic testing to me to figure out if I qualify for Israeli citizenship when I came here.

I say my comparison is quite accurate. Or would you like me to use the French as an example? ;)

French is just another nationality, not a race. And I would say that if race is NOT at issue, then just what IS the claim of the Jewish people to what is now Israel, over the claims of any of the other "nations" that have inhabited the area over the past several millenia? Indeed, if race is not a factor, then what the heck does "the Jewish people" even mean?

Now we're getting somewhere conversationally, some new ground being broken at last.

French is just another nationality, not a race. And I would say that if race is NOT at issue, then just what IS the claim of the Jewish people to what is now Israel, over the claims of any of the other "nations" that have inhabited the area over the past several millenia? Indeed, if race is not a factor, then what the heck does "the Jewish people" even mean?
You're quite a confused one, aren't you? Are you aware of the actual distinction between a nation, a nationality (a.k.a. citizenship) and a race?

Here's some definitions for the confused among us:

Nation: (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Nation)

A nation is an imagined community of people created by a national ideology, also known as nationalism, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. Added to this is usually the idea that a national (a person of the national ideology) should speak a certain language. The language itself might however be a facilitating factor in creating a nationalism that establishes a nation (not to be confused with a state).

And more about the nation concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation)

The most popular modern ethical and philosophical doctrines state that all humans are divided into groups called nations. The nationals (born of the "nation" in this sense) are distinguished by common identity and origin. The definitions and extent of identities and origins are very vague: two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be regarderd by others as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.

The term is often used synonymously with ethnos or ethnic group, but the terms aren't exactly the same, because ethnic groups have the same ethnic origin but do not necessarily fall under the same political institutions.

In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.

In a somewhat more strict sense, however, nation (ethnos) denominates a people in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states, see country.

Try to keep the patronising to a minimum, okay.

One thing a DNA test would certainly show is that whatever common gene all Jews might have (By the way, what happens if I become Jewish tomorrow? To me and my children?) is a small factor in any single person's makeup.
You'd find many things in their genes, many for example would be German. You are aware that names like Goldstein are German names, as Jews from all over Europe were asked to come to early Prussia in the late Middle Ages.

My point is, if you feel like you want to live anywhere you want, then do it. But using genetics to differentiate yourself from another human is a precarious thing in the least. My reference to the DNA Test (as AkhPhasa more correctly interpreted) would be to show the people the similarities, not to prove there is no Jewish people.

There may be a distant link between some of the tribes that may have lived in the area a long time ago. Whether those tribes were anything like what people imagine them today is highly doubtful in itself. The only references we have are the Bible (which, even the most pious will have to agree, has gone through a lot of hands over the years) or a few records by the Egyptians, Hethites, Assyrians and Babylonians. And those are sketchy and say pretty much nothing about religion either.

I am German. My nation is Germany, and my state is Germany. My race is not "German", if there is such a thing as race, I am a wildly mixed bastard anyways.
But that doesn't mean that I can somehow connect myself to ancient Germanic tribes. I didn't bring down the Roman empire, nor did my ancestors. My ancestors come from all over, and the same goes for you, believe it or not.

In conclusion, you said that what I was saying is that because my mother may be Jewish, but my father isn't, I wouldn't be Jewish.
That is of course not the case in the first generation, but how long does a Black Person stay black if all he ever does is marry White People, one generation after the next? And if that went on for 3000 years, is that child still black?

You're quite a confused one, aren't you? Are you aware of the actual distinction between a nation, a nationality (a.k.a. citizenship) and a race? Here's some definitions for the confused among us...

Oh come now. You know you are going to run into difficulties if you try to rely upon an obscure and hazy definition that is at odds with the commonly used form, starting off with "A nation is an imagined community". You are simply attempting to distract from true discourse by using an archaic or "airy" definition of language in order to obfuscate rather than communicate.

*****

state: a politically organized body of people under a single government; "the state has elected a new president"; "African nations"; "students who had come to the nation's capitol"; "the country's largest manufacturer"; "an industrialized land"

the people who live in a nation or country; "a statement that sums up the nation's mood"; "the news was announced to the nation"; "the whole country worshipped him"

Once a synonym for "ethnic group," designating a single culture sharing a language, religion, history, territory, ancestry, and kinship; now usually a synonym for state or nation-state.

*****

Oxford Dictionary: nation

• noun a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

— ORIGIN Latin, from nasci ‘be born’.

*****

Webster: na·tion
Pronunciation: 'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English nacioun, from Middle French nation, from Latin nation-, natio birth, race, nation, from nasci to be born; akin to Latin gignere to beget -- more at KIN

1a (1) : NATIONALITY
(2) : a politically organized nationality
(3) : a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire -- Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)>

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION

3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

*****

As for race: Rod Hagen (an anthropologist), says, "Race as understood by most people, is a socially derived concept based on an over-estimation of the extent of biological differences between different populations of humans. It is often used in an attempt to provide a false legitimising "scientific" explanation of the diversity of human cultures, and to justify heirarchical or discrimatory action aimed at ensuring the dominance of one cultural group over another. For this reason, when discussing differences between groups of people, the term "ethnic group", which recognises the cultural rather than biological differences between people, is preferable to "race" in almost all situations."

*****

In short, I would suggest that the only confusion here is created by your obscure use of archaic word definitions. Additionally, I would suggest that by resorting to personally insulting tone and language you are injuring your own cause. When someone is actually trying to engage in a discussion with you with a view to finding common ground or consensus (especially in a field as contentious as this one) you might be wise to avoid engaging in such childishness. It makes enemies out of people who could otherwise be won over by a well-thought-out argument, and this cause doesn't need anymore enemies than it already has.

Oh come now. You know you are going to run into difficulties if you try to rely upon an obscure and hazy definition that is at odds with the commonly used form, starting off with "A nation is an imagined community". You are simply attempting to distract from true discourse by using an archaic or "airy" definition of language in order to obfuscate rather than communicate.
Puh-lease. It is YOUR definitions that are outdated and inadequate. The Wikipedia link, if you bothered to click on it in the first place, explains the entire evolution of the term "nation" in great detail.

You know, its funny. The nationhood of the Jewish people has never been doubted in the past, and even today it is never in question except for someone with an ax to grind against Israel.

It is amusing that you don't even notice the absurd in making a nation and a state synonymous. I can name any number of groups of people who are widely recognized as nations yet are most obviously not "a politically organized body of people under a single government". The Kurds, for example, and the Druze,and the Yakuts, and the Native Americans, and the Tatars. I can even name plenty of nations that do not enjoy unity of territory- not just the Jews, but the Circussians, the Beduin, the Gypsies, the Karaim. Hell, if we examine the Palestinians by your definitions they don't qualify either. Since all of the above are recognized by pretty much everyone as nations, it places your definitions firmly in the garbage bin of history.

-snip-
I'm not gonna get into semantics here, but I would consider Tartars, Bedoins or Kurds "peoples" rather than "nations"...

In conclusion, you said that what I was saying is that because my mother may be Jewish, but my father isn't, I wouldn't be Jewish.
That is of course not the case in the first generation, but how long does a Black Person stay black if all he ever does is marry White People, one generation after the next? And if that went on for 3000 years, is that child still black?
You are again slipping from discussing nationhood into discussing race and anthropology. Don't be an AkhPhasa.

How long do you stay the member of the same family as your father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc? In what generation does your family stop being yours?

I'm not gonna get into semantics here, but I would consider Tartars, Bedoins or Kurds "peoples" rather than "nations"...
"I'm not gonna get into semantics, I'll just get into semantics" ;)

But I'm game. Let's call them all "peoples". It is, after all, the language used by theUN Charter (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36c.htm) in reference to the right for self-determination:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

-snip-
What is a family other than a bloodline?

EDIT: I'm all for an Israeli/Jewish state/nation/'piece of land with a race on it'. I just don't accept the claim that this particular strip of land is yours because a people with the same name may have lived there 3000 years ago.

What is a family other than a bloodline?
Many things, my friend, many things. One of which is right of inheritance.


EDIT: I'm all for an Israeli/Jewish state/nation/'piece of land with a race on it'. I just don't accept the claim that this particular strip of land is yours because a people with the same name may have lived there 3000 years ago.
Why? Because the passage of time somehow invalidates one's status as a rightful owner of the territory? The "might is right" factor?

Why? Because the passage of time somehow invalidates one's status as a rightful owner of the territory? The "might is right" factor?
Well, if we have figured out that
a) Today's Jews all have something genetically in common that presumably comes from the same people a long time ago
b) This isn't about race and therefore a) can be ignored
c) Family is many things which basically means it is a cultural thing
d) Israelite tribes from back then had a very different culture and even religion from today's Jews
e) Millennia have passed
f) My family once owned a chocolate factory in today's Czech Republic, but we can't get it back because others live there now
then that pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue.

All I want is for Israelis to back off their religiously/ethnically motivated righteousness in this case in order to facilitate some sort of compromise between the two nations/peoples.
Both are there now, both have to somehow get along. How about we just forget the past for a moment or two and figure out the future?

Well, if we have figured out that
a) Today's Jews all have something genetically in common that presumably comes from the same people a long time ago
b) This isn't about race and therefore a) can be ignored
c) Family is many things which basically means it is a cultural thing
d) Israelite tribes from back then had a very different culture and even religion from today's Jews
e) Millennia have passed
f) My family once owned a chocolate factory in today's Czech Republic, but we can't get it back because others live there now
then that pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue.
Actually, if your family owned a chocolate factory in today's Czech Republic and it was taken away illegally, you would be more than justified in filing a lawsuit. People did get their property back that way plenty of times. And I doubt people live in a chocolate factory, anyway ;)

You are still playing it dense though. The French 200 years ago had a VERY different culture and even religion than the majority of today's French. Disneyland, McDonalds, clubbing and rock music, for instance, were totally unknown. Does it make them any less French, any less descendants of the same French or any less entitled to France?


All I want is for Israelis to back off their religiously/ethnically motivated righteousness in this case in order to facilitate some sort of compromise between the two nations/peoples.
In other words, it is impossible for you to recognize that we're talking about a conflict of rights, and you can only talk about compromise or peace in terms of supermacy of one side's rights over the other?

Both are there now, both have to somehow get along. How about we just forget the past for a moment or two and figure out the future?
When the opponents of Israel finally shut the hell up and will begin to regard Israel as a fait accompli rather than something that has no right to exist, give me a call and we'll continue this line of discussion :rolleyes:

Puh-lease. It is YOUR definitions that are outdated and inadequate. The Wikipedia link, if you bothered to click on it in the first place, explains the entire evolution of the term "nation" in great detail..

This is from your Wikipedia link:

"In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state."

These are not "MY" definitions. They are the definitions commonly used by native English speakers. I do not make them up as I go along. In order for communication to be effective the words you use must have a commonly understood meaning. Using an obscure legalese definition from "laborlawtalk.com" does not change the fact that your definition is not the commonly used one, as evidenced by your own link, in clear black and white.

You know, its funny. The nationhood of the Jewish people has never been doubted in the past, and even today it is never in question except for someone with an ax to grind against Israel.

The old "you're just out to get me", eh?

It is amusing that you don't even notice the absurd in making a nation and a state synonymous.

Once again, it is common usage among native speakers, whether you like it or not.

I can name any number of groups of people who are widely recognized as nations yet are most obviously not "a politically organized body of people under a single government". The Kurds, for example, and the Druze,and the Yakuts, and the Native Americans, and the Tatars. I can even name plenty of nations that do not enjoy unity of territory- not just the Jews, but the Circussians, the Beduin, the Gypsies, the Karaim. Hell, if we examine the Palestinians by your definitions they don't qualify either. Since all of the above are recognized by pretty much everyone as nations, it places your definitions firmly in the garbage bin of history.

Aha! Who was it who was speaking of the Nation of Israel? That was you, I believe, not me. It is YOU who have been confusing the jewish nation (using your vague "group of people" definition of nation) with the Nation of Israel (using the normal commonly held "state" definition of nation). So while the jewish nation has existed ever since they came out of Asia Minor into the Middle East during the Middle Dynasties of Egypt, the Nation of Israel has NOT existed continuously since then. So any argument that says "the jews owned that land 3000 years ago" could just as easily be trumped by Egypt saying "we owned that land 3001 years ago and for thousands of years prior to that, a jewish kingdom sprang up for a few hundred years and then collapsed, and then we took back what was ours again for another thousand years".

Again, I am not saying there shouldn't be a jewish homeland, I am just pointing out that the "we owned it a long time ago for a little while" argument doesn't hold water. Many people owned it a long time ago for a little while, some prior to the jewish people's arrival and some after the jewish people's arrival.

In other words, it is impossible for you to recognize that we're talking about a conflict of rights, and you can only talk about compromise or peace in terms of supermacy of one side's rights over the other?
I think that lasting peace is impossible as long as either side is incapable of giving up its' illusions of grandeur.
The Palestinians want a big and strong powerful Palestine with Jerusalem as their capital.
The Israelis want a big and strong powerful Israel with Jerusalem as their capital.
There is a conflict of interest. The Palestinians have the claim that they lived there earlier. That is verifiable, we even have photos.
The Jews say that they were there a lot earlier. That is more difficult to verify, to a point where one basically have to be a zealot to take the Bible as granted.

What I am saying is this: Both sides have equal claims. You are implying that the Jews' claim is correct, while the Palestinian claim is incorrect. And I reject that. To me, both claims are equally valid, and a compromise must be found by both sides giving up "their right" to the land and the city.

As for what Israel has done since 1949, you probably know what I think about that. Because I see most of what happened as blatant violations of both common sense, UN resolutions and sometimes international law, I believe Israel is wrong to lay claim to any lands outside it's "borders" (afterall, Gurion never bothered with those) of of 1948/49.

I think that lasting peace is impossible as long as either side is incapable of giving up its' illusions of grandeur.
The Palestinians want a big and strong powerful Palestine with Jerusalem as their capital.
The Israelis want a big and strong powerful Israel with Jerusalem as their capital.
There is a conflict of interest. The Palestinians have the claim that they lived there earlier. That is verifiable, we even have photos.
The Jews say that they were there a lot earlier. That is more difficult to verify, to a point where one basically have to be a zealot to take the Bible as granted.

What I am saying is this: Both sides have equal claims. You are implying that the Jews' claim is correct, while the Palestinian claim is incorrect. And I reject that. To me, both claims are equally valid, and a compromise must be found by both sides giving up "their right" to the land and the city.yes, the claims are almost equal and both of the sides should give up some of their wishes. the only problem is the palastinians refused to fought the terror and forget their "right to back to their old homes in israel" as they call it.
it isn't nagotation when only one side agree to give up.
As for what Israel has done since 1949, you probably know what I think about that. Because I see most of what happened as blatant violations of both common sense, UN resolutions and sometimes international law, I believe Israel is wrong to lay claim to any lands outside it's "borders" (afterall, Gurion never bothered with those) of of 1948/49.only the palastinians and the arabs wasn't better and therefore shouldn't get benefits from the israeli actions. we still in "tie" of bloodshipness.

yes, the claims are almost equal and both of the sides should give up some of their wishes. the only problem is the palastinians refused to fought the terror and forget their "right to back to their old homes in israel" as they call it.
it isn't nagotation when only one side agree to give up.
only the palastinians and the arabs wasn't better and therefore shouldn't get benefits from the israeli actions. we still in "tie" of bloodshipness.
Almost equal?

Additionally (and I'm making myself unpopular again) to the Palestinians, who do not have a regular army, or anything other than words to influence the situation, terror attacks are just as ligitimate as the military incursions are to you.

Even the "Palestinians attack civilians, we don't" line doesn't really work, because if you look at the sheer numbers, regardless of intent more Palestinian civilians are being murdered than Israeli civilians.

No, really. Both sides are giving up. The Palestinians would give up their claim to certain areas and to Jerusalem, and the same goes for the Israelis. Right now the balance is just so ridiculously unequal that in order to get some equality, the Israelis are giving up more, or so it might seem.

And what do you mean by "a tie of bloodshipness"?

Declaration of neutrality - The author is not in any way affiliated with any legal or illegal political organisation of any kind.

When the present state of affairs is considered, US aid in pulling out of Gaza is probably not a bad thing. The settlement program is, according to certain sources, a severe drain on Israel's economy. I present this quote and url as an example:

"The unending conflict, which the settlers exacerbate, has contributed to a severe economic downturn, a rising rate of unemployment (over 10%), a dramatic decrease in foreign investment, and an increase in the number of Israelis (now 20%) living below the poverty line, including 27% of all children."

http://bringthemhome.btvshalom.org/

As such, it is possible to think of the pullout as a damage-limitation initiative, cutting costs and making the remaining settlements more viable. However, this will probably only delay the inevitable, as the West Bank settlements are more numerous and cover a larger area. It is therefore fair to claim that all settlements will be removed eventually. With a considerable proportion of Israeli voters opposed to the settlement program (with their numbers increasing according to some sources), pro-settlement politicians will have great difficulty in maintaining the program without going against public opinion.

Bear in mind that any pullout will involve even more monetary investment over the next few years, as the settlers must not only be compensated for the loss of their property in occupied areas, but induced financially to resettle inside Israel.

As such, it is possible to think of the pullout as a damage-limitation initiative, cutting costs and making the remaining settlements more viable. However, this will probably only delay the inevitable, as the West Bank settlements are more numerous and cover a larger area. It is therefore fair to claim that all settlements will be removed eventually. With a considerable proportion of Israeli voters opposed to the settlement program (with their numbers increasing according to some sources), pro-settlement politicians will have great difficulty in maintaining the program without going against public opinion.
Good point.

Almost equal?

Additionally (and I'm making myself unpopular again) to the Palestinians, who do not have a regular army, or anything other than words to influence the situation, terror attacks are just as ligitimate as the military incursions are to you.

Even the "Palestinians attack civilians, we don't" line doesn't really work, because if you look at the sheer numbers, regardless of intent more Palestinian civilians are being murdered than Israeli civilians.

No, really. Both sides are giving up. The Palestinians would give up their claim to certain areas and to Jerusalem, and the same goes for the Israelis. Right now the balance is just so ridiculously unequal that in order to get some equality, the Israelis are giving up more, or so it might seem.

And what do you mean by "a tie of bloodshipness"?
fine, so it total equal. I used the word "almost" because they will always be some little differences between the sides.

terror isn't legitimate weapon if he aim on civilians. the israeli terrorists before the countrey maybe damaged military equipment, but they don't bomb in the center of london. legitimacy to terror just as legitimacy to war, must had limits. un-conventional bomb in the center of tel-aviv, can't be legitimate terror, right?

it dosen't matter who's fault is the war, nor who suffur most. the only thing is matter is how to end it.

as I said before, the destruction of the terror organizations, and the cancel of their wish to immigrate to israel, are more important than the final borders. I just can't see us win the radical settlers, nor them win the terrorists.

oh, and "tie of bloodshipness" supposed to mean that every side lose some times and win sometimes but there isn't total win or lose. much of the canals buttles at ww1.

What part of the Government are you from then, if you don't mind me asking? I am mostly an in the field agent, very rarely am I in the office, despite the air condition is quite nice. :p Nothing to great.

it dosen't matter who's fault is the war, nor who suffur most. the only thing is matter is how to end it.
I pretty much agree.
It is only important at all times not to assume moral superiority because "they use terror and we do not".

I just don't see the Palestinians ever really considering a peace deal in which the Israelis keep most of what they have gained over the past 60 odd years.
I'm sure you can understand that in the eyes of the Palestinians, the various wars, the Israeli take-over of Jerusalem etc are just ridiculously unfair. Unless this unequalness is at least addressed, there will forever be voices in Palestine against Israel.

We saw it after WWI in Germany. You can't take away forever and expect the other side to be perfectly reasonable.

II just don't see the Palestinians ever really considering a peace deal in which the Israelis keep most of what they have gained over the past 60 odd years.
I'm sure you can understand that in the eyes of the Palestinians, the various wars, the Israeli take-over of Jerusalem etc are just ridiculously unfair. Unless this unequalness is at least addressed, there will forever be voices in Palestine against Israel.

probably, they loose more things, and therefore we will have to give more than them for fair peace agreement.
in the end, we would have to pull out from most of the west bank, and they will have not immigrate to israel. agreement is possible. the problem will be to make the agreement happen. for the radicals in both sides, every surrender is betrayal, and they already prove that they accept to harm civilians lifes in order to get their goals.